Gregory L. Pelts, Appellant v. Shelly A. Pelts, Appellee

Summary

The court held that Gregory Pelts’s vested interest in reserve military retirement was legally distinct from his contingent interest in active-duty retirement, so the circuit court improperly divided the nonvested active-duty interest. The court also held that requiring Gregory to fund a survivor-benefit plan for Shelly’s sole benefit created an unequal property division without sufficient justification. The judgment was reversed and remanded, and the intermediate appellate decision was vacated. Justice Courtney Hudson Goodson, concurring in part and dissenting in part, would have affirmed the division of the military retirement benefits but agreed that the survivor-benefit ruling should be reversed and remanded.